"Non dis-chargeable" planning conditions - anyone fallen into this trap?!
January 4, 2019 by callum in forum Planning Forum
- Home
- Forums
- Planning Forum
- "Non dis-chargeable" planning conditions - anyone fallen into this trap?!
#609 callum, 4 January 2019, 17:53
This little surprise wasn't welcome....
our planning consent included 11 conditions relating to all sorts of things including much wildlife. On fulfillment of all the listed criteria within the conditions through submission of the required info i expected the conditions to have been discharged. Not so.
8 of 11 conditions set have been dubbed by planners as "not being dis-chargeable" by saying that they "containing nothing to discharge". SO either these conditions don't meet the "six tests" and so are invalid in some way by not being reasonable and precise. (In that they can't be good conditions as they are written in a way that is not dis-chargeable.)
To me 'not-dis-chargeable' sounds like a non statement, if they have nothing to discharge, just discharge them and be done with it - that is their role in this part of the process - to decide if a condition is to be discharged.
Has anyone else encountered this pitfall perchance?
It looks like a neat way to make us apply for removal of conditions or a certificate of lawfulness and pay another fee to boot.
Humbug!
our planning consent included 11 conditions relating to all sorts of things including much wildlife. On fulfillment of all the listed criteria within the conditions through submission of the required info i expected the conditions to have been discharged. Not so.
8 of 11 conditions set have been dubbed by planners as "not being dis-chargeable" by saying that they "containing nothing to discharge". SO either these conditions don't meet the "six tests" and so are invalid in some way by not being reasonable and precise. (In that they can't be good conditions as they are written in a way that is not dis-chargeable.)
To me 'not-dis-chargeable' sounds like a non statement, if they have nothing to discharge, just discharge them and be done with it - that is their role in this part of the process - to decide if a condition is to be discharged.
Has anyone else encountered this pitfall perchance?
It looks like a neat way to make us apply for removal of conditions or a certificate of lawfulness and pay another fee to boot.
Humbug!
Reply to topic
Return to topic list | Return to forum list